Transcript Road safety data and indicators Prof. Dr. Péter Holló KTI Institute for Transport Sciences Non-profit Ltd. Széchenyi István University Road safety lecture, University of.

Road safety data and indicators
Prof. Dr. Péter Holló
KTI Institute for Transport Sciences Non-profit Ltd.
Széchenyi István University
Road safety lecture, University of Brescia, 26th October 2011
1/40
Content
1.)Some basic considerations
2.)Road safety assessment
3.)Road safety performance indicators
according to main risk factors
3.1. alcohol related accidents
3.2. safety belt and child restraints
3.3. speed
3.4. child injury prevention from road accidents
4.)Conclusions
Road safety lecture, University of Brescia, 26th October 2011
2/40
Content
5.)
Remarks on the data set
6.)
Remarks to the questionnaire
7.) Conclusions
8.)
Some details of the road safety assessment
9.)
How to go further?
Road safety lecture, University of Brescia, 26th October 2011
3/40
1. Some basic considerations
Task of this WP 5 (Evaluation, monitoring):
- to monitor (follow-up) the implementation of
the local rs programme
- to evaluate the effects
We do not deal with comparison and ranking of
countries or pilot areas.
Road safety lecture, University of Brescia, 26th October 2011
4/40
1. Some basic considerations /2
We would like to monitor the (hopefully positive)
changes and to prove the benefits arising from
programme implementation.
In order to be able to do this we have to repeat the
situational assessment after the implementation of
the programme.
(So-called “before-after” comparison).
It is clear that only the numbers of accidents/victims
and the exposure data are not enough.
We have to evaluate the efforts taken in order to
improve the road safety situation.
Therefore we need rs performance indicators too.
Road safety lecture, University of Brescia, 26th October 2011
5/40
1. Some basic considerations /3
At this moment we have only national performance
indicators.
In this project we need local performance indicators.
These can be measured, observed or collected.
The methodology of performance indicators can be
found in:
ETSC publications (www.etsc.eu)
SafetyNet project. (www.erso.eu)*
Road Safety Observatory of EU (www.erso.eu)
PIN project of ETSC (www.etsc.eu)
* theory and practice (manual for data collection)
Road safety lecture, University of Brescia, 26th October 2011
6/40
2. Road safety assessment
what are the realistic indicators to monitor?
what are the realistic indicators to use for evaluation?
The main risk factors:
alcohol related road crashes
safety belt and child restrains
speed
child injury prevention from road crashes, etc.
Road safety lecture, University of Brescia, 26th October 2011
7/40
3. Road safety performance indicators
(SPIs) according to main risk factors
3.1 alcohol related accidents
In the SafetyNet project the following SPIs have been
proposed on alcohol and drugs:
1. Number and percentage of severe and fatal
Injuries resulting from road accidents involving
at least one active road user impaired by
psychoactive substance.
2. Percentage of fatalities resulting from accidents
involving at least one driver impaired by alcohol.
3. Percentage of fatalities resulting from accidents
involving at least one driver impaired by drugs
other than alcohol.
(See details on
http://erso.swov.nl/data/content/spis_on_alcohol_and_drugs.htm)
Road safety lecture, University of Brescia, 26th October 2011
8/40
3. Road safety performance indicators
(SPIs) according to main risk factors/2
3.2. safety belt and child restraints
International or regional comparisons of protective
systems’ usage rates are important tools for
recognising deficiencies, setting priorities and
stimulating efforts at political level.
Road safety lecture, University of Brescia, 26th October 2011
9/40
3. Road safety performance indicators
(SPIs) according to main risk factors/3
The suggested SPIs in the SafetyNet project:
1.
Daytime wearing rates of safety belts
in front seats
in rear seats
child restraint use in passenger cars
(for different vehicle categories)
2.
Daytime wearing rates of crash helmets
cyclists
moped riders
motorcyclists
(See details on:
http://erso.swov.nl/data/content/spis_on_protective_sys
tems.htm)
Road safety lecture, University of Brescia, 26th October 2011
10/40
3. Road safety performance indicators
(SPIs) according to main risk factors/4
3.3. Speed
The SPIs developed here, are:
mean speed,
standard deviation,
85% speed
% of drivers exceeding the speed limit
(for different road types, vehicle types, periods of day
and periods of week, i.e. weekdays and weekends.)
(See details on:
http://erso.swov.nl/data/content/spis_on_speed.htm)
Speed is of basic importance from the point of view
of vulnerable road users as well (also important area
in SOL)
Road safety lecture, University of Brescia, 26th October 2011
11/40
3. Road safety performance indicators
(SPIs) according to main risk factors/5
v<30 km/h,
5%
v> 50 km/h,
50%
probability of pedestrian fatality in
relationship with collision speed
Road safety lecture, University of Brescia, 26th October 2011
12/40
3. Road safety performance indicators
(SPIs) according to main risk factors/6
Some examples from Győr:
The pedestrian crossing close to an elementary school
Source: research report of the SBS Kft.
Road safety lecture, University of Brescia, 26th October 2011
13/40
3. Road safety performance indicators
(SPIs) according to main risk factors/7
Some examples from Győr:
Results of measurements:
In the cross section of the pedestrian crossing.
Time of the measurement: 24.03.2011 9:35:00 24.03.2011 10:35:00
V85 = 53,4 km/h
Number of vehicles belonging to V85 : 251 pcs
Vmax = 70,0 km/h 24.03.2011 9:40:00
Total number of vehicles = 295 pcs
Road safety lecture, University of Brescia, 26th October 2011
14/40
3. Road safety performance indicators
(SPIs) according to main risk factors/8
Road safety lecture, University of Brescia, 26th October 2011
15/40
3. Road safety performance indicators
(SPIs) according to main risk factors/9
Speed measurement results are available at the police
too, but we need measurements in the free traffic
flow first of all.
Not only the speed level is important from the point
of view of safety, but the speed distribution too.
(Homogeneity)
In traffic engineering the 85% speed is used. (The
speed under which 85 percent of traffic is travelling).
The aim is not only to decrease the speed level, but
the great speed differences too, in other words to
reach a more homogeneous speed distribution.
Road safety lecture, University of Brescia, 26th October 2011
16/40
3. Road safety performance indicators
(SPIs) according to main risk factors/10
3.4. child injury prevention from road accidents
In the “Hungarian National Action Plan on Child and
Youth Safety” the following indicators are used to
monitor the improvement of the road traffic safety of
children (0-14 years of age):
1. The rate of serious and fatal injuries resulting
from road traffic accidents in the 0-14 age group, by
age group and role
2. The percentage of children travelling in child safety
seat, by age group
3. The percentage of children using safety belts, by age
group
Road safety lecture, University of Brescia, 26th October 2011
17/40
3. Road safety performance indicators
(SPIs) according to main risk factors/11
4. The percentage of children wearing protective
helmets, by age group
5. The percentage of children wearing reflective vests
when cycling, by age group
Road safety lecture, University of Brescia, 26th October 2011
18/40
4. Conclusions
The main aim of SOL is the capacity development,
the improvement of the human factor (education,
campaigns, etc.)
Therefore the behaviour oriented performance
indicators are of basic importance, such as:
- safety belt wearing rates
- percentage of drivers who are exceeding the speed
limit
- percentage of drivers who take part in traffic under
the influence of alcohol
Road safety lecture, University of Brescia, 26th October 2011
19/40
4. Conclusions /2
Important further indicators could be:
- number of drivers punished for speeding
- number of drivers punished for drinking and driving
- number of drivers punished for non-wearing of the
safety belts or non using the child restraints, etc.
(National data are available in ETSC publications)
Road safety lecture, University of Brescia, 26th October 2011
20/40
5. Remarks on the basic data set
• The suggested indicators for evaluation of the local
RS programmes have already been elaborated.
• Their details were reported in my two last
presentations
(WP5
update
–
Evaluation,
monitoring, Warsaw, 1-3 March 2011, Road Safety
assessment: risk factors and indicators, Munich, 12
May 2011)
• It is obvious that we have to use the same
indicators at the end of the project as before the
programme implementation.
(Before – after comparison)
Road safety lecture, University of Brescia, 26th October 2011
21/40
5. Remarks on the basic data set /2
• The present set of indicators for the road safety
assessment have been elaborated in close
cooperation with ITS.
• The present set of indicators is a compromise
between the perfect solution (theory) and the given
possibilities (practice, deadline)
• Unfortunately some data are lacking or are not
available in the necessary form.
Road safety lecture, University of Brescia, 26th October 2011
22/40
6. Remarks to the questionnaire
1) It is not clear what does “collisions” mean?
Fact: everyone creates new definitions.
Suggestion: we should use the definitions of
international databases or international literature.
For example, in connection with collisions one can
speak about single-vehicle or multi-vehicle accidents.
2) The “collisions” could be entirely different.
Suggestion: accident types have to be used.
For example: head-on collisions, rear-end collisions,
etc.
3) The pedestrian accidents are also collisions between
motor vehicle and pedestrian.
Road safety lecture, University of Brescia, 26th October 2011
23/40
6. Remarks to the questionnaire /2
As risk indicator the mortality rate (killed/100 000
inhabitants) has been selected.
Fact: this indicator alone cannot be used for
international comparison without distortion.
Not
the number of inhabitants but the level of
motorisation (motor vehicles /1000 inhabitants)
is decisive from the point of view of road safety.
This indicator does not take into consideration
the level of motorisation.
(Unfortunately ETSC uses only this indicator for
international comparisons)
The mortality rate can be used for the
“measurement” of the development. In form
of time series it is a reasonable indicator.
Road safety lecture, University of Brescia, 26th October 2011
24/40
6. Remarks to the questionnaire /3
Suggestion:
the mortality rate has to be used together
with the fatality rate (killed/10 000 motor
vehicles)
This “two-dimension-model” (elaborated
by Haight et al.) is very simple and takes
into account the level of motorisation,too.
Road safety lecture, University of Brescia, 26th October 2011
25/40
6. Remarks to the questionnaire /4
The two-dimension-model for international comparison
of road safety (Haight et. al.)
Road safety lecture, University of Brescia, 26th October 2011
26/40
6. Remarks to the questionnaire /5
As fatality risk, killed/106 vehicle-km has been selected.
Fact: From theoretical point of view it is the best
indicator. Vehicle-kilometres are the “best”
exposure data. In other parts of the
questionnaire number of inhabitants and number
of motor vehicles are used as exposure data.
The problem is that in a region or in a town
these data cannot express the real exposure.
This is true especially in case of high percentage
of transit traffic (e.g. Győr)
Road safety lecture, University of Brescia, 26th October 2011
27/40
6. Remarks to the questionnaire /6
It is easy to understand that not only local residents
and not only locally registered motor vehicles are
travelling in a region or in a town.
Therefore it would be necessary to collect (to measure
or to estimate) reliable vehicle-kilometres for the local
network.
It is a complicated and expensive task but its
implementation necessarily arises in the future.
Road safety lecture, University of Brescia, 26th October 2011
28/40
7. Conclusions
• The present set of road safety indicators represents a
compromise between the possibilities and real
circumstances.
• This set of indicators can be used for the evaluation
of local RS programmes.
• During the implementation of the programme and
first of all, in the future the “package” of indicators
should be further elaborated.
• This set is only the basic one, additional indicators
can also be used for the evaluation.
Road safety lecture, University of Brescia, 26th October 2011
29/40
8. Some details of the road
safety assessment
– The number of people killed is very low from
statistical point of view. (However, in the reality it can
never be low enough. See our long term vision!)
Therefore it is impossible to draw any meaningful
conclusion for the measures necessary and the effect of
random fluctuation is very high.
– The number of personal injury road traffic accidents
and those of people injured are high enough to identify
trends and to make further – more detailed – analysis.
Year
Number of personal
injury accidents
Number of killed
Number of injured
2005
179
1
207
2006
228
7
268
2007
231
6
282
2008
224
4
268
2009
223
8
284
2010
227
4
270
Road safety lecture, University of Brescia, 26th October 2011
30/40
8. Some details of the road safety
assessment /2
– The number of personal injury road traffic accidents
and those of people injured are practically stable in
recent years. For example the number of accidents
was 228 in 2006 and 227 in 2010. An other example:
the number of people injured (seriously and slightly)
was 268 in 2006 and 270 in 2010.
Number of accidents in Hungary - Gyor
400
350
300
250
228
200
150
231
224
223
227
179
100
50
0
2005
2006
2007
2008
Road safety lecture, University of Brescia, 26th October 2011
2009
2010
31/40
8. Some details of the road safety
assessment /3
Number of injured in Hungary - Gyor
400
350
300
268
250
282
284
270
268
200
207
150
100
50
0
2005
2006
2007
2008
Road safety lecture, University of Brescia, 26th October 2011
2009
2010
32/40
8. Some details of the road safety
assessment /4
– This stability means that the main aim of the local
road safety strategy could only be to significantly
decrease the number of personal injury road traffic
accidents and those of people injured.
– To identify the main target areas, we have to analyse
the numbers of accidents and people injured according
to the most important circumstances (mode of traffic,
age group, cause of accident, time of the day, location
of accident, etc.)
Road safety lecture, University of Brescia, 26th October 2011
33/40
8. Some details of the road safety
assessment /5
Some conclusions which can be useful
elaboration of the local road safety strategy:
in
the
1) The number of persons seriously injured in accidents
involving drivers impaired by alcohol shows an
increasing trend. It was 9 in 2005 and 14 in 2010. It
seems that driving under the influence of alcohol is
really an increasing problem in Győr.
Year
Injured in accidents involving
driveres impaired by alcohol
S*
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
S
9
6
10
11
11
14
SL**
19
20
38
16
29
19
61
141
S
28
26
48
27
40
33
*S – Seriously injured
**SL – Slightly injured
202
Road safety lecture, University of Brescia, 26th October 2011
34/40
8. Some details of the road safety
assessment /6
2) Between 2005 and 2010 the most seriously injured
people were car occupants (127) and pedestrians (112).
The number of seriously injured cyclists was also high
(101) in this period. All this means that the more
effective protection of
Injured by road users group
-car occupants
injured in
injured
injured
injured
-pedestrians, and Year pedestrians passangers motorcyclists
bicyclists
cars
-cyclists
S* SL** S S* SL** S S* SL** S S* SL** S
2005 23
19 42 17
67 84 11
5 16 10
26 36
is necessary
2006 28
30 58 20 78 98 8
7 15 21 29 50
for the future.
2007 21
33 54 25 102 127 4
9 13 21 29 50
*S – Seriously injured
**SL – Slightly injured
2008 13
2009 11
2010 16
S 112
27 40 20
19 30 26
101 121 12
110 136 3
9 21 13
12 15 14
22 38 19
150 262 127
88 107 4
546 673 42
9 13 22
51 93 101
Road safety lecture, University of Brescia, 26th October 2011
31
35
42
192
44
49
64
293
35/40
8. Some details of the road safety
assessment /7
3) Since Győr is a town, it is obvious that most of the
seriously injured people (421 out of 465) suffered their
injuries inside built-up areas.
Injured by road type
Injured in built-up area
Year
S*
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
S
71
87
83
61
61
58
421
SL**
125
168
173
179
181
180
1006
Injured outside built-up area
S
S*
196
255
256
240
242
238
1427
SL**
3
4
7
9
10
11
44
8
9
19
19
32
21
108
S
11
13
26
28
42
32
152
*S – Seriously injured
**SL – Slightly injured
Road safety lecture, University of Brescia, 26th October 2011
36/40
8. Some details of the road safety
assessment /8
4) Unfortunately we do not have exposure data –
number of vehicle kilometres - for daytime and
nighttime periods. Therefore the simple distribution of
people injured according to the time of the day does
not provide us any useful information. Taking into
account that the traffic volume is probably very low in
nighttime (to be more precise: in darkness), the
number of seriously injured people in nighttime seems
to be quite high.Injured by time of day
Year
*S – Seriously injured
**SL – Slightly injured
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
S
Injured during day
S*
58
71
63
49
53
49
343
SL**
101
119
123
148
154
154
799
Road safety lecture, University of Brescia, 26th October 2011
Injured during night
S
159
190
186
197
207
203
1142
S*
16
20
27
21
18
20
122
SL**
32
58
69
50
59
47
315
S
48
78
96
71
77
67
437
37/40
8. Some details of the road safety
assessment /9
5) These age group intervals are used in the statistics but
some of them are too big compared to others. For example
the age group 25-64 is too big compared to the 15-17, or the
10-14. It means that the statistical weight of this age group
will be much higher than those of others which can be
misleading.
6) In spite of remark 5, it can be clearly seen that the age
group 65- is the target group among pedestrians. In other
words, most of the seriously injured pedestrians (44 people)
are older than 65 years.
Injured by age - pedestrians
Year
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
S
0-5
6-9
S* SL** S
1
1
3
2
1
6
4
2
1
7
10-14
15-17
18-24
S* SL** S S* SL** S S* SL** S S* SL** S
1
1
1
1
4
1
1
4
1
3
10
1 2
2 3
5 4
1 1
2 1
3
14 11
2
4
2
3
2
4
7
6
4
3
13 24
1
1
1
1
4
5
5
2
4
2
18
5
6
2
5
1
3
22
2
4
1
1
1
9
1
5
2
2
2
3
15
3
9
3
3
3
3
24
Road safety lecture, University of Brescia, 26th October 2011
25-64
65S* SL** S S* SL**
7
8 15 12
2
7
8 15 11
4
9
12 21 6
9
4
15 19 5
2
2
7
9 5
7
10
10 20 5
4
39
60
99 44
28
*S – Seriously injured
**SL – Slightly injured
S
S
14
15
15
7
12
9
S* SL**
23
28
21
13
11
16
72 112
19
30
33
27
19
22
150
S
42
58
54
40
30
38
262
38/40
8. Some details of the road safety
assessment /10
7) In groups of other road users (car occupants,
motorcyclists, cyclists) the most seriously injured people
belong to the age group 25-64, which is no surprise at
all. On the one hand this is the so–called “active” age
group. On the other hand this is the biggest age
interval. During our further analysis we have to apply
other, more detailed age groups too.
Injured by age - in passanger cars
0-5
6-9
Year
S* SL** S
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
S
2
4
3
0
3
4
16
2
4
3
3
4
16
10-14
15-17
18-24
S* SL** S S* SL** S S* SL** S S* SL** S
0
4
4
4
2
14
4
4
4
2
14
0
3 3
2 2
7 7
2 2
2 2
5 5
21 21
1
1
2
1
2
1
8
1
3
3
4
4
2
17
2 4
4 1
5 3
5 1
6 4
3 4
25 17
16 20
22 23
22 25
18 19
25 29
15 19
118 135
25-64
65S
S* SL** S S* SL** S S* SL**
10
40 50 2
7
9 17
67
17
49 66 1
1 20
78
19
60 79 1
2
3 25 102
14
59 73 4
11 15 20 101
17
64 81 3
8 11 26 110
11
56 67 3
4
7 19
88
88
328 416 14
32
46 127
546
S
84
98
127
121
136
107
673
*S – Seriously injured
**SL – Slightly injured
Road safety lecture, University of Brescia, 26th October 2011
39/40
9. How to go further?
These analyses are only the first steps.
The further – more detailed – analysis, the identification
of the main aims of the local road safety programme
can only be carried out in close co-operation with the
local experts, stakeholders.
To begin of this activity was the main aim of the
workshop in Győr organised on 16th September.
Road safety lecture, University of Brescia, 26th October 2011
40/40
Thank you
for your attention !
Prof. Dr. Péter HOLLÓ –
[email protected]
Road safety lecture, University of Brescia, 26th October 2011
41/40